Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed a petition seeking directions that the authorities take time-bound coercive measures against a political leader accused in several hate-speech FIRs, including his arrest, a detailed investigation, and submission of charge sheets in all pending cases. The petition was based on allegations that the State had not acted promptly on complaints concerning inflammatory statements attributed to the leader. The Bench held that investigations were already in progress and found no material showing that officials had acted arbitrarily or with any improper motive. It observed that claims of State apathy, without supporting facts, could not warrant judicial intervention and declined to order supervision or dictate the course of investigation.

The matter arose from a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions against a political leader accused of delivering repeated hate speeches targeting specific communities. The petitioner alleged that despite multiple FIRs registered against the respondent, no coercive action had been taken by the State authorities.

Also Read: Art 226 | Writ Petition Cannot Be Invoked When Alternate Statutory Remedy Lies Before High Court In Different Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that the speeches included derogatory remarks against communities and their revered figures, creating fear and intimidation. It was argued that the State’s failure to act violated Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution and contravened binding directions of the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India. The petitioner sought immediate arrest, supervised investigation by a senior police officer, consolidated charge sheets, and periodic status reports.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that FIRs had already been registered and investigations were ongoing. It argued that the petitioner was attempting to dictate the manner of investigation and compel arrest, which was impermissible in writ jurisdiction. The State maintained that it was balancing public order with free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and denied allegations of arbitrariness or mala fides.

The statutory provisions invoked included Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 505 of the IPC and corresponding provisions of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court recorded that “multiple FIRs have already been registered against Respondent No. 3, and the investigations therein are stated to be ongoing.” The Bench stated that that “the Petitioner has not brought forth any cogent material to demonstrate that the investigating agency has either shut the investigation or refused to act on the FIRs.” It added that “mere dissatisfaction with the pace or nature of investigation cannot, in law, furnish a ground for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Article 226 of the Constitution.”

The Court stated that “the reliefs sought by the Petitioner, particularly those seeking directions for immediate arrest, the manner of investigation, supervision by a senior officer of a particular rank, and periodic status reports, amount to a prayer for judicial supervision and micromanagement of criminal investigation.” It further held that “such reliefs, if granted, would impermissibly encroach upon the statutory domain of the investigating agency and violate the well-settled principle that the Court cannot direct the police to arrest a particular individual, nor can it predetermine the course or outcome of investigation.”

On allegations of arbitrary State conduct, the Bench recorded that “no material has been placed on record to establish that the State authorities have acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or with ulterior motive.” It added that “the mere assertion of ‘State apathy,’ without substantiating facts, is insufficient to justify judicial intervention.”

Also Read: ‘Disabled employees are compelled to climb the stairs daily’: Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Motu Action, Directs PWD Secretary To Explain Non-Functional Lift And Lack Of Facilities In Govt Building

Regarding reliance on Supreme Court decisions, the Court observed that “those judgments do not mandate automatic arrests or mechanical coercive action upon every allegation of hate speech” and that “they require the State to register FIRs and ensure fair, expeditious investigation which, in the present case, has already been undertaken.”

The Court stated: “In light of the above analysis, we find no merit in the present CRMP. The reliefs sought are neither maintainable nor substantiated by any exceptional circumstance justifying deviation from established legal principles governing criminal investigation. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Agrawal, appears in person through VC
For the Respondents: Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. GA

Case Title: Amit Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:56741-DB
Case Number: WPCR No. 585 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru